Conservative activist, Charlie Kirk, has been shot and killed at University

[Inliytened1]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There has been a whole movement called Antifa since Trump came to power which is dedicated to opposing the rise of fascism in America.

I do not support Antifa,

Then be careful about your comments like earlier in the thread.  

[Inliytened1]

16 minutes ago, Joshe said:

@Inliytened1 the video I just posted directly addresses your position and reveals the absurdity. Your argument is identical to Trump’s. If you find yourself agreeing with Trump, at the same time in strong disagreement with intelligent people, that’s a sign bro. 

My position is the fear mongering on the left leads to what we see could happen like we saw here with a young man getting struck down for speaking his mind

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

My position is the fear mongering on the left leads to what we see could happen like we saw here with a young man getting struck down for speaking his mind

People should not bring up concerns about authoritarianism?

Like your thread?

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, Elliott said:

People should not bring up concerns about authoritarianism?

Like your thread?

There is a lot fear mongering on the far left that have portrayed Trump as an upcoming Hitler.  Plus the radical right views on transgenderism . When you combine those it could really instill fear that those rights could be taken away. 

Edited yesterday at 06:52 AM by Inliytened1

[Elliott]

Or, is the authoritarianism the actual problem?

Is the fascism, the actual problem?

"Fascism is generally defined as a political movement that embraces far-right nationalism and the forceful suppression of any opposition,"

Edited yesterday at 06:57 AM by Elliott

[Elliott]

3 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

There is a lot fear mongering on the far left left that have portrayed Trump as an upcoming Hitler.  Plus the radical right views on transgenderism . When you combine those it could really instill fear that those rights could be taken away. 

Which rights?

Edited yesterday at 06:56 AM by Elliott

[zazen]

The classic definition of facism and communist don’t cleanly map onto what’s happening today if we only use their worst historical examples as barometers. It’s like how Zionists will say genocide isn’t occurring because it doesn’t match the Holocaust or Rwanda like a carbon copy.

Theirs a danger in using definitions too loosely  - because it’s premature, demonizing and polarizing. But then again -  there’s a preventive logic in broadly defining something as a danger in order to stop it in its tracks.

People call something “fascist” or “genocidal” early on not because it resembles Mussolini’s Italy or Rwandas genocide but because they fear it could harden into that if left unchecked.

But also - not every case is supposed to look like its worst example of those definitions. Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin notoriously cemented those definitions, so we historically gravitate to those examples as anchors whenever those words are evoked.

It’s possible to have facism and communism with American characteristics. So what is US facism?

I don’t think US christo-facism will look like the total fascism of the 20th century because they lack the educated bureaucratic staff to run the machinery of the state in such a total way as to impose their vision top down. The base is made up of blue collar workers which means they don't have the pool of white collar professionals needed to staff the institutions to carry out their vision. This is why “the establishment” generally leans liberal for that very structural reason.

That’s why all they can do is gut institutions rather than have the capacity to build or revamp institutions in their own image. The same reason they can’t run a modern expansive government of a superpower is the same reason their international imperial empire will be in rapid retreat. This doesn’t mean it won’t be bad at home - it will be patchy authoritarianism using the existing tools of state, but not totalizing the state for their own end. Relief abroad from US imperialism, repression at home.

The US right are reactionary populists with patchy authoritarianism and racists among their ranks. The US left are technocratic liberal reformists with commie revolutionaries among theirs. But the extremes within their own ranks don’t define the total. Generally, the right aren’t pushing an organized ideaology of racial supremacy and domination - and the left aren’t pushing a commie revolution to abolish private property.

The larger point to all this is why the polarization in the first place? Ask yourselves if this is structurally due to the inherent contradictions within liberal democracy itself?

If liberalism encourages diversity, and democracy gives those differences political power - then when those differences grow too divergent, each side uses politics to impose its “vision of America” on the other. Social media and dumbed down discourse doesn’t help in fueling that conflict over whose version should prevail.

Edited yesterday at 08:20 AM by zazen
Grammar papi

[Elliott]

20 minutes ago, zazen said:

If liberalism encourages diversity, 

Liberalism allows diversity, it would be culture that encourages diversity.

Quote

and democracy gives those differences political power - then when those differences grow too divergent, each side uses politics to impose its “vision of America” on the other.

Throughout every culture, there are rifts.

Quote

Social media and dumbed down discourse doesn’t help in fueling that conflict over whose version should prevail.

Just as with every other culture, the differences meld into each other, separate, and meld, a living changing culture. 

Edited yesterday at 07:33 AM by Elliott

[Staples]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

My position is the fear mongering on the left leads to what we see could happen like we saw here with a young man getting struck down for speaking his mind

Don't whitewash how much hate and bigotry he spread by diminishing it as 'speaking his mind'.

He damaged people with his words. His words were not harmless.

Saying 'some gun deaths are necessary' in front of an audience of millions is not a harmless thing to say.

Edited yesterday at 07:46 AM by Staples

[zazen]

54 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Liberalism allows diversity, it would be culture that encourages diversity.

Throughout every culture, there are rifts.

Just as with every other culture, the differences meld into each other, separate, and meld, a living changing culture. 

I agree rifts happen within culture, but sometimes those rifts don't mend back together into one cohesive culture - they crystallize into a separate culture. So then you don't have a rift within a culture, but a rift creating two cultures that are now at odds and rifting with each other. They become different versions of what America should look like - almost like rival religions. Once you differ on the fundamentals of what is true (ontology) and what is good (morality) you are different cultures.

The left and right differing on a whether a woman can have a cock or not, or whether women should remain virgins till marriage or not (heck even the idea of marriage itself)  - are two sides walking the same planet but in different worlds all together.

Semantic hair splitting aside - whether liberalism allows or creates diversity - the structural point is liberal democracy proliferates, politicizes and polarizes that diversity in a way that conservative non-democracies don't. A centralized un-democratic system becomes unstable when the demos get fed up enough not having their voice heard and revolt. A de-centralized democratic system becomes unstable when the demos fractures because too many voices within it diverge and fight over the political space their supposed to share.

Rifts within culture create differences, that sometimes splinter into different cultures. Liberalism gives those differences legal protection and room to grow. Democracy then politicizes them by giving each faction the political power to impose their different visions via the state. Those differences are no longer private beliefs but become codified in policies that affect everyone. So suddenly, your neighbor’s worldview becomes a political threat, because it might be voted into law. In a non-democracy there's no political expression for all those differences to allow for that polarization. 

Edited yesterday at 08:25 AM by zazen

[PurpleTree]

4 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

I hate to break this to you but the dude wrote fascism into the very bullet casings that killed Kirk. 

I mean that could easily be to cause confusion no.

Could just write something like

„zionism ❤️“

or

"allau akbark“

and people would be lead in a direction 

[zazen]

@PurpleTree @Inliytened1 Words alone aren’t violent but the worldview behind them can be.

I think the difference is in using words as analytical or descriptive vs as a moral marker on an enemy that justifies violence against them.

I don’t think Israelis writing “To Amalek” on  their missiles was them trying to identify Gazans analytically - that was to exterminate them. Obviously.

On a side note - isn’t it odd how this fucker hasn’t been called a terrorist?

Edited yesterday at 09:30 AM by zazen

[PurpleTree]

5 minutes ago, zazen said:

 

 

On a side note - isn’t it odd how this fucker hasn’t been called a terrorist?

Usually "killers“ shooters or snipers who kill one person, planned aren’t called te&&orist no?

Edited yesterday at 09:34 AM by PurpleTree

[zazen]

13 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Usually "killers“ shooters or snipers who kill one person, planned aren’t called te&&orist no?

We’d think so but body count doesn’t matter as much as intent. If the word is defined as violence for political ends surely it fits the definition?

Thats the point I was making in the previous comment about how we mentally fix a word to its most extreme or notorious example - anchoring bias at play. Terrorism doesn’t need mass casualties to be terrorism just like genocide doesn’t need gas chambers to be genocide.

Just shows how the word “terrorism” is politicized and not neutrally used. Or maybe I’m getting too loosey goosey with my definitions.

Edited yesterday at 09:48 AM by zazen

[Leo Gura]

Seems like the shooter could really be a far-right 4chan groyper. Wow.

4chan is truly a cesspool that needs to be shut down. Like half of all mass shooters originate from there.

Edited yesterday at 10:18 AM by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Fascism is generally defined as a political movement that embraces far-right nationalism and the forceful suppression of any opposition,"

Over the last few days major MAGA influencers have called for the elimination of the entire Democrat party and the left.

I'm tired of this gaslighting. MAGA is fascistic in its psychology and ambitions, even if they aren't exactly WW2 Nazis. They firmly believe the left is evil and they will try to eliminate it if given the chance. This not a hypothetical.

Edited yesterday at 10:25 AM by Leo Gura

[Nercohype]

Yeah another anti-woke is killing people again. This is why anti-wokeism is like poison ☠️☠️☠️

[PurpleTree]

I wanted to make a post how I could blame the fracturing and radicalisation on social media and the internet 

but then i thought it’s not a good point. Basically most things now are amplified by social media and internet.

Charlie Kirks career wouldn’t have existed without social media etc.

[Staples]

42 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

even if they aren't exactly WW2 Nazis.

That depends how much we let them get away with.

[Terell Kirby]

Wise liberals, leftist and progressives will clearly see Charlie Kirk’s murder as a blow to the very ideals they stand for, and a regression of democratic and liberal ideals.

Stuff like this unites MAGA and the right. They feed off of violence and dysfunction. It also legitimizes their claims that leftist should be eradicated-through means that don’t exclude violence given recent events. This widens their influence on political narratives.

If you call your self a leftist or progressive- and are unable to see this, you are in a way immature and don’t see how this will backfire and paint you into a corner you can’t get out of. Stop debating and get real-it’s a time for self reflection and honesty.

Just listen to Kirk’s wife, there’s a confrontational element to it:

https://youtu.be/1KogDLBZ8hM?si=GmgNSrhuQe6jweIO

Edited yesterday at 11:46 AM by Terell Kirby